True enough, maybe, but IF* the many references about Tessla's inventions are correct, then it becomes a half truth disguising another truth. That is, if an invention can be made to actively serve humanity with the result that there isn't any possible chance for money to be made in America, or, even worse, take the potential away from multi-millionaires to make even more millions by peddling a product that otherwise could be had by the public much more cheaply, then you can rest assured that such an invention will never see the light of day.
Tessla made the promise that he could deliver cheap electricity wirelessly to the public.I seem to recall that the tower that he built with his own funds to deliver his promise after Carnagie withdrew his financial support still stands today.
Now that you mention it, Catt proposes that the electrical charge actually travels as a transverse electromagnetic wave moving between conductor A and conductor B.
Hmmmm! Do you reckon that might have anything significantly relevant as to actually why earlier established EM theory regarding TEM waves have "mysteriously" been removed from textbooks?
By Jove, I think you may be onto something here!
Many great points. Generally all I might really be able to offer is that things are still similar to the way it's always been. People are going to keep close to the chest any competitive advantage they can get. I just don't think we're all as dumb as you worry we are. Have we seen the last world war? I hope so, but you imply that it's always good to have the option, and you're probably right. But supposing we are actually on the knee of exponential advance, people that were used to a particular level of secrecy are going to notice within their lifetimes that the difference between common and possible is going to widen, even if the relative levels between each are similar.
Last edited:
"In todays corporate engineered world there is no serious competition in the important industries."
You mean like when ASML didn't buy up SVG? I think the gubmint had to think that one over to decide whether they liked it or not. You don't have to trust me, but I say things are still very organic out there.
Especially the corporate engineers would disagree with that one.
You mean like when ASML didn't buy up SVG? I think the gubmint had to think that one over to decide whether they liked it or not. You don't have to trust me, but I say things are still very organic out there.
Especially the corporate engineers would disagree with that one.
Last edited:
I'm not sure why some people can't accept that this was a monumental failure on Tesla's part. He poured every bit of money he had into the thing and when it ran out, the project was over. No one else was foolish enough to dump any significant funds into a gadget that wasn't showing any promise.
As for everything else, maybe you've read a little too much "science fiction" to the point that you have trouble distinguishing what is fantasy and what is real. One of the underlying themes that flows through most science conspiracy theories is that the "authorities" are preventing us from realizing the scientific fantasies of "science fiction" writers, for no other reason than they are just plain mean.
By historic document, I mean something that records a true event, something that really happened, the Declaration of Independence for example. This is just a convention historians use to describe something that is such a thing. You may twist it around in any way you please. The Zionist movement is simply an idea that came about at a time when Jews were undergoing renewed persecution that had transcended simple religious bigotry and they only wanted a place where they could live in peace without being blamed for every unfortunate circumstance that occurred. How well has that worked out for them?
John
Last edited:
I would go so far as to suggest that quickly enough the relative difference between what is common and what is possible is actually going to Narrow, that being part of advance as well. Likely people of Heyday's mind will be instrumental in forcing the change. I think they exist at every level of capacity. We have at least mostly eradicated kings in favor of corporations by now. I don't think anyone wants to go back. Who knows what the next step will be. At least the internet is able to get so many people the info they need to devote more productive "CPU" time to these higher order effects in reality.
Last edited:
AFAIK Tesla never proposed that he knew how to create cheap/free energy, but a wireless delivery system. The "grid" as we know it today was probably developed via massive amounts of political stong-arming, graft, and corruption. Power beaming was probably taken as a huge threat to the status quo. This idea is still alive today using near field coupling, but efficiency is still a problem. The grid remains a more efficient way.
Lets keep the religion out of this please.
Last edited:
There is plenty of political strong-arming, graft, and corruption present in any large public project. If power beaming were practical in terms of economic efficiency it would be in place today. It is not and presents no threat to the status quo. My posts concerning the Protocols (...) are strictly historical in nature, not religious.
John
I could care less what you believe. Where on earth did you get mystery or "keeping information to themselves" from what I said? I'm not prepared to go back to graduate school in physics, and I don't limit my understanding to what I cull off of the web. Most professionals I know don't put their findings up on web pages to invite public discourse. I'm talking about the current state of physics research published in any number of refereed journals.
I was unaware that this is a raging controversy except maybe among the free energy kooks trying to discredit all science. So where does Catt's proposal lead us?
Did anyone ever sit down and calculate what the idle loss of a Wardenclyffe type transmitting tower would be, ignoring any useful tranmission of power? Looking at the size of the fan arrays over fluid filled cooling fins on comparatively little cores used for power transmission, energy companies have grown to accept considerable loss, especially at full load. I just wonder whether they would do it if they could figure out a way to sell much more power without making any more. Looking at the parasitic use of WiFi spots even though they are addressable, I don't think it would be easy to bill for energzing the entire globe. Even if they could get better efficiency, which is unlikely, why would anyone supply free energy? I don't think Tesla claimed that the tower would supply itself. It doesn't seem to solve any problems.
I understand that tranformer volume is a cubing and that surface area is a squaring, so very high power transmission transformers are going to look out of whack compared to little equipment transformers, and that a plain efficiency number for the power transmission types is likely to beat the equipment transformer by an impressive margin.
I think if you were to calculate the heat loss (core and copper losses) in large power transmission transformers, you would find that they are relatively small compared to the amount of power transferred.
John
For the record now, what do you want to believe?
I believe some people never stop talking long enough to say anything.
A correspondent has pointed me toward the related crankery of someone named Bruce dePalma. Perpetual motion machines AND tube amplifiers. Perhaps we should introduce these guys to one another.
Poor Bruce, he was at MIT when I was (don't remember him). I think the homopolar generator relates to the MEG and we are back to the usual cast of characters. Not a nice passing either. I forgot, he was Brian DePalma's brother.
Commentary on the Death of Bruce dePalma
Last edited:
I suppose what bothers me most about all of this is that after a lifetime of reading lucid and well written texts by talented as well as brilliant engineers and historians, these tracts to me are written in such a manner I find disturbing and headache inducing. Without considering the ideas presented in texts, the writing style is often primitive and difficult to comprehend. It suggests that something is missing or has gone awry in the minds of the authors and lends nothing to their credibility.
John
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.